Shuman v. Collis

43 N.E. 257, 144 Ind. 333, 1896 Ind. LEXIS 181
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 25, 1896
DocketNo. 17,416
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 43 N.E. 257 (Shuman v. Collis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shuman v. Collis, 43 N.E. 257, 144 Ind. 333, 1896 Ind. LEXIS 181 (Ind. 1896).

Opinion

Monks, J.

Appellee, Collis brought this action against appellant and appellee, James Etchison, [334]*334sheriff of Madison county, to enjoin said sheriff from selling the real estate of appellee, Collis, on an execution issued on a judgment in favor of appellant against said Collis.

Filed March 25, 1896.

A judgment was rendered in the court below, enjoining appellant and Etchison, as such sheriff, from selling said real estate or any part thereof.

It is well settled that all parties against whom judgment is rendered in the court below must, in all vacation appeals, be made appellants in this court, or the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Section 635, R. S. 1881 (section 647, R. S. 1894); Denke-Walter v. Loeper, 142 Ind. 657, and cases cited; Midland R. W. Co. v. St. Clair, 144 Ind. 363.

There can be but one appeal from the same judgment, when the same is not a term time appeal all parties entitled to appeal must be joined as co-appellants. Denke-Walter v. Loeper, supra, and cases cited.

Final judgment was rendered in this case October 9,1893, and the appeal was perfected October 8,1894. The appeal, therefore, is not a term time appeal, and is not governed by the provisions of the act approved March 9, 1895. (Acts 1895, p. 179). James Etchison was a joint judgment defendant with appellant in the court below and should have been made an appellant in this court. This has not been done, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Phillips v. Ball
114 N.E. 647 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
McCaslin v. Winfield
103 N.E. 72 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Hubbard v. Burnet-Lewis Lumber Co.
98 N.E. 1011 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Brown v. Brown
80 N.E. 535 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)
Polk v. Johnson
78 N.E. 652 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
Burns v. Trustees of Huntertown Cemetery Church
68 N.E. 915 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Gunn v. Haworth
64 N.E. 911 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)
Sohl v. Evans
62 N.E. 84 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Everett v. Fouts
60 N.E. 454 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Owen v. Dresback
56 N.E. 22 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
McKee v. Root
54 N.E. 802 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Anderson Glass Co. v. Brakeman
47 N.E. 937 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Stults v. Gibler
45 N.E. 340 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Lowe v. Turpie
44 N.E. 25 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Perry v. Botkin
42 N.E. 964 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 N.E. 257, 144 Ind. 333, 1896 Ind. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuman-v-collis-ind-1896.